Merchant Navy Officer Academy fined Rs 50,000

Chandigarh, January 9
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Swami Vivekanand University of Merchant Navy (now Merchant Navy Officer Academy) for its failure to provide onboard deck training to a resident of Mohali.

The district forum comprising president PD Goel and members Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjit Kaur Sahota also directed the opposite party to refund Rs 3,15,000, besides Rs 10,000 as the cost of litigation.

The complainant, Arvind Kaur, submitted that after being allured by the advertisement regarding the deck cadet course (pre-sea training) by the opposite party, she approached them for getting her son, Mohit Arora admitted in the said course, culminating into the licence for continue discharge certificate, upon which placement of the candidate would be made on the ship.

She was to deposit Rs 3,15,000, out of which Rs 1,55,000 was for the pre-sea training and an amount of Rs 1,60,000 was to be deposited before the start of the course. She deposited Rs 1,55,000 and her son was issued various certificates regarding the training and the onboard training was to commence from November 4, 2009, but the same was not started. She approached the opposite party through her husband who asked her son to deposit the remaining fee of Rs 1,60,000.

She further alleged that her son was taken to Bangkok (Thailand) on March 12, 2010 on the assurance that the continue discharge certificate would be issued there. Before departing, a sum of Rs 1.60 lakh was also taken by the opposite party and her son was issued certificate to work onboard of Panamanian Ship for a period of three months and thereafter, received a letter through the opposite party from one Hailong Shipping and Investment Development Vietnam for the onboard training, starting from May 3, 2010.

According to the complainant, many commitments were made regarding the continue discharge certificate and licence to board, but no development took place and her son has to stay at Bangkok. Thereafter, he was taken to Cambodia where her son had to stay for one month and returned back on expiry of his visa.

According to the complainant, the certificates issued by the opposite party were fake and had no recognition for imparting the said training, besides having no authority to issue the said certificates. She requested the opposite party to refund Rs 3,15,000 deposited with them, but to no effect.

The counsel for the opposite party pleaded that on completion of the pre-sea training course, requisite certificates were issued to the candidate. Thereafter, they provided certificate to the candidate for joining the “onboard training”, without any delay. It has been pleaded that the complainant has failed to deposit Rs 1,60,000 for the onboard training of the candidate and only Rs 1,47,200 was paid on March 15, 2010, that, too, after the completion of the training and issuance of the transitory certificate in February, 2010.

It has further been pleaded that the complainant’s son returned to India without consulting the opposite party and failed to reach the company’s office by the stipulated date i.e. May 12, 2010. They further asserted that the institute of the opposite party is duly recognised and the certificates issued by them are genuine.